click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130121
20130129
STATION
CSPAN2 8
CSPAN 7
MSNBCW 7
MSNBC 4
CNNW 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
WBFF (FOX) 2
KTVU (FOX) 1
LINKTV 1
WETA 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
WTTG 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 58
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 58 (some duplicates have been removed)
started it in 2007 with harry reid to block george w. bush. george w. bush never challenged this. >> correct. and in fact, george w. bush's lawyers wrote recently in the newspapers that this is presidential power. the constitution gives the president the power to make recess appointments. and they are undermining. >> that is really not in dispute. what is in dispute here is whether the senate was actually in recess and the question comes who gets to decide whether the senate is in recess? the senate or the president? >> and i think the oath -- you also have to put this in broader context. >> things got done during that -- >> they weren't in town. they weren't in town. you could not consider a nomination because they weren't here. >> the thing about this, though, put it in broader context. the more interesting aspect of the ruling was them dialing this way, way back and saying in fact if you look at the constitution you can't even if you are a president hold out the recess appointments and then make them finally put them forward when the senate is in recess. the recess has to happ
, ironically, if john mccain and lindsey graham and others had joined with george w. bush, this could have been done in 2007. >> right. what john mccain sort of didn't say but implied was what has changed about this issue? it's simple. november 6th, the 2012 general election. the overall share of republican votes was -- people that voted for republicans is white. 11% nonwhite. it is -- that is an untenable -- we saw in 2012, and it will only get worse if they continue to lose 70% plus of the hispanic vote. that's what's changed here. republicans broadly recognize it. the question is jose touched on it, the path to citizenship. that is the piece that is always the one that conservative republicans said we will not do this. we are validating illegal behavior, no matter what we do. now there are some republicans on board. marco rubio, john mccain, lindsey graham saying, look, this has to be in the proposal. can they rally republicans in the house and senate behind the political necessity of putting immigration reform behind them with a path to sit sfwlenship or not? that seems to me to be the rub.
of the george w. bush administration. this brings me to another critically important part of our book, which is how the islamic republic of iran has become the biggest that issue of american mistakes and are ongoing decline in the middle east. in our book, we lay out how by pursuing a foreign policy and building a domestic political order that attracts publics, the islamic republic of iran has been able to take an impeach of american mistakes, to improve its own position dramatically. the key to the islamic republic successes has been that beyond the shift in the distribution of power, who has power in the middle east is a detailed earlier, something even more important is happening and that is the middle east will power itself is changing. it is now increasingly less defined by hard military capabilities for the united states has a clear advantage in the islamic republic of iran is relatively positioned and more defined in terms of the balance of influence are the islamic republic of iran has real unique advantages. as we explained in our book, the islamic republic is encouraging and taken
not just idiosyncratic, ideologically-generated products of the george w. bush administration. as we describe in our book, these stem from a much deeper source that cuts across both democratic and republican administrations, and it's something we describe as the united states, essentially, giving in to a post-cold war temptation to act as an imperial power in the middle east. and it is this imperial turn in america's middle east policies pursued with very little regard for realities on the ground in the middle east that have proven not just quixotic, but deeply damaging to american interests. as a candidate back in twaipt, now-president obama then seemed to really understand this. he talked about it courageously during the campaign. he pledged to not just withdraw american troops from iraq, but to change what he called the american mindset that had gotten us into the strategic mistake of invading iraq in the first place. he pledged to really change america's middle east policies. but instead the obama administration has pursued the same sorts of policies as its predecessors, the same
baker and george h.w. bush nsx 70 hageman of the world's nations. this subset can do that, we have seen a completely different scene and that is what i would describe as the 20 armors and three libraries and they've got about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world. and oliver sudden, you have people who don't have -- a lot of people in congress who don't have the previous reference has basically come to the conclusion that the world is change and they really can't afford, nor do we have the public support for global engagement. when you go back home intact to people back home, it literally is like saying you need to diet and lose a lot of weight and i'll get a haircut or not solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid in person is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant compared to the whole. yet the will to support that going forward into the event step out and say well, we are to be more engaged here or we can do more here or these are the functions that are working, it's hard to get public support for that. it's hard to get congressional sup
: the democrats. >> no, democrats -- >> democrats started it in 2007 with harry reid, blocking george w. bush. george w. bush never challenged this. >> correct and, in fact, george w. bush's lawyers wrote recently in the newspapers, that this is presidential power, the constitution gives the president the power to make recess appointments. >> chris: juan, i want to -- >> that is not in dispute. what is in dispute here, is whether the senate was actually in recess and the question comes, who gets to decide whether the senate is in recess? the senate? or the president? >> a sham... >> and, in the broader context, there are things -- >> -- things done during that -- >> they weren't in town, they could not consider the nomination because they were not here. >> but it in broader context, the more interesting aspect of the ruling was them dialing it way, way back and saying, in fact if you look at the constitution, you can't even, if you are a president, hold out the recess appointments, and, then make them finally put them forward when senate is in recess. the recess actually has to happen while t
. iraqi weapons of mass destruction. >> john: scare yes words the george w. bush administration never apologized for which no one ever take responsibility for which didn't stop rand paul trying to make secretary hillary clinton personally responsible for benghazi when the board cleared her. >> i'm glad you're accepting responsibility. i think that all thely with your leaving you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11 i really mean that. had i been president at the time and i found that you did not read the cables from benghazi, you did not read the cables from ambassador stevens, i would have relieved you of your post. i think it's inexcuse cuesible. >> john: that's rand paul getting his in for 2016. i'm thrilled to be joined by tj crowley. thank you so much for joining us this evening. >> a through, john. >> john: i want to get your take on this. did these hearings seem to be more about what happened in four years than what happened in benghazi last fall? >> it's a mix. certainly as your clip showed, some senators and some representatives who just haven't got past se
. barack obama was not responsible for the benghazi attack any more than george w. bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks or ronald reagan was responsible for the attacks on our marine barracks in beirut which killed over 200 marines. and frankly whether it was called a terrorist attack or not, in the immediate aftermath as far as i'm concerned is irrelevant. we just have to make sure that it never happens again, so that in the future our people are protected. that's what i want to get out of all of this. so, madam secretary, we commend you for accepting all of the arb recommendations and welcome your commitment to begin implementing them by the time you leave the department. even before the arb submitted its conclusions, the department moved to address certain shortcomings through its increased security proposal, vast majority of the funding for this proposal would come from funds previously appropriated for lower priority programs. and i hope congress will move without delay to give the department the transfer authority it needs to start applying these changes. it is important to r
party over the past four years since george w. bush left town is roger els. he's run the party, he's run the conservative movement. when roger els decides she's not worth the trouble, then that means that conservatism's moving in a new direction. i talked about what happened this weekend at "the national review" institute's talk. i was really surprised. really surprised by what i heard. and heartened, whether it was bill kristol or john hatoritz. also scott walker who is doing really well up in wisconsin. and all the republicans got up there, and they were saying the same thing. we've got to stop being the stupid party. we've been saying here for six months, we have got to -- and john, i thought, had one of the best points, that we have stifled debate. the conservative movement has stifled debate. and if you go out and you dare to stand out in a crowd, whether it's on taxes or regulations or in the past on immigration, you were completely shunned from the party. finally there's an understanding we've got to grow the party. what we've been saying for quite frankly for years and getting at
for the benghazi attack any more than george w. bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks or ronald reagan was responsible for the attacks on our marine barracks in beirut that killed over 200 marines. whether it was called a terrorist attack or not, in the immediate aftermath as far as i'm concerned is irrelevant. we have to make sure it never happens again so that in the future our people are protected. that's what i want to get out of all of this. madam secretary, we commend you for accepting the recommendations and welcome your commitment to implement them by the time you leave the department. even before they committed conclusio conclusions, they moved to address shortcomings through increased security proposal. the vast majority for the proposal come from funds previously appropriated for lower priority programs. i hope congress will move without delay to glif the transfer authority it needs to start applying these changes. it is important to remember security is not a one off endeavor. it's a long-term responsibility and investment. in that context, the members led by ambassador pic
's name was george w. bush. there is a lot of hypocrisy going on in washington, which i'm sure you're not surprised by it. michael hastings is not only writing for rolling stone and buzzfeed but author of the "sublime and inside story of obama's final campaign." he's also a correspondent here at "the young turks." of course, lindsay moran former clandestine officer for the i c.i.a. great to have you here. let me start with you michael were you surprised at the severity of the republicans response to clinton? >> no. they decided this was going to be an issue that they were going to ride as far as they could. they already got one scalp with susan rice preventing her from becoming secretary of state and including trying to tarnish secretary clinton's image. that first question that secretary clinton we just heard who was asked by the senator that was off base. clinton is right. whether it was a spontaneous demonstration or a planned attack or some sort of combination of both, which is from my understands that that is the case, it's fairly irrelevant. that's the wrong question. rand pa
bongino] daniel bongino is a former secret service agenn and for a time protected president george w. bush. [take sot dan bongino ]in 109:37 "i don't think they missed it, they had it and theedecisions and not security based..trt=:07 [c boyden gray ]sst in 19:08 "the mistake thht people make over anddover again is the been something of a cover-up thh washington guardiannjust -3 go to fox-baltimore dot com... guaadian" in thh "hot topics" the scrren &p3beeonce beyonce live... or tape?what one pprson... apparently close tt the inauuuration... says about theeperformance...in 10 minutes on fox45 news at ten p3 &p3 3 new at 10-300ttnight...the owner of a west baltimore night club is facing a seeies of criminal violations &ptoniggt...aniie park is headquarters and and tells us the club has been aammgnet for viilence. janiie? police say if theeclub is ddtermined dangerous...they have the ppwer to shut t down for uppto a year. in just over aayear...6 people hhve been shot...outside his restaurant, club...and sean rhodds...a father of four is dead...hissfamily tonight is demanding it be shut
a relief it is! >>> welcome back. josh trevino former speechwriter in the george w. bush administration and now at the texas public policy foundation and ambassador swanee hunt who served as u.s. ambassador to austria, now a lecturer at harvard's kennedy school of government. we have just been talking as you saw in a very heated fashion about the situation in north africa and i think that's one core part of the legacy of the first administration's foreign policy and hillary clinton's tenure at state and i think the defining external event to the administration of foreign policy has been the arab spring, obviously, and all that uncorked and how to manage that. but before we get to that, we still have robin on satellite. i want to talk about the relationship between the president and hillary clinton and the degree to which the legacy of foreign policy in the first term has been hillary clinton's legacy and the degree to which it really has been -- the shots have been called from the white house because a lot of reporting on this has been very interesting. tonight there's going to be an in
presence put together by jim baker and george h. w. bush and the success in the engagement of it. but subsequent to that, we have seen a completely different scene. that is what i would describe as three alarmers and two alarmers. we about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world within all of a sudden you have people who don't have the -- a lot of people in congress who don't have the previous reference have basically come to the conclusion that the world has changed and we can't afford nor do we have the public support for global open gaugement. -- engagement. when you talk to people back home and you say why do we give so much foreign aid? it is literally like saying, you know, you need to diet and lose a lot of weight and you get a haircut and solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid and presence now is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant compared to it. but yet the will to support that going forward and even step out and say well we ought to be more engaged here or do more here or these are the functions that are working. it's
like, you know, going into now five years post-george w. bush, this is an important front. >> i think they are also recognizing we are dealing with a very different national security defense. you heard leon panetta talking about the light footprint, having a smaller footprint, like in columbia, we're there for a long period of time, but there's a complement between resources, troops, embassies, the different kinds of people we need to help and the endeavors and the republicans haven't quite figured out how to talk about that. gone are the days we're going to have these, you know, big signing ceremonies on a ship in the middle of the ocean when our opponent surrenders. that's not what war is anywhere. >> that's what the hagel hearing is. >> before we go, in terms of what this has done is brought to the fore the importance of our diplomatic core overseas. at the same time, there's questions about funding, keeping them behind barracks or having them out in the world and the risks entailed there. i wonder how much you think this sort of changes the dynamic in terms of, you know, who we ha
know, barack obama is no more responsible for what happened in benghazi than george w. bush was for what happened on september 11th, 2001 or ronald reagan when the marines got blown up in beirut. these are terrible tragedies and what we have to do is come together as a people to find out what happened and to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. and that to me is the real purpose of secretary clinton testifying because we really want to make sure that this doesn't happen again. this should not be used for political gotchas but americans need to band together at times of national tragedy. we lost our ambassador and other americans and we want to make sure as the secretary has said we need to move forward to take steps to make sure this doesn't happen again. she's agreed to accept this plan, these points, 29 points, this was a high-powered thing, wasn't any kind of cover-up or washed over. this is very distinguished, mr. pickering and adds miral mullen had good recommendations and they should be implemented as soon as possible so there are no future benghazis. >
george w. bush. he's currently a senior adviser at the united states institute of peace. welcome to both of you. first, zbigniew brzezinski, your thoughts on john kerry as nominee for secretary of state? >> i think he's an absolutely top-notch choice. very good. experienced, solid, energetic with a broad vision and with a strong focus on trying to stabilize those parts of the world that are especially dangerous. i think he's practical, intelligent, well informed. >> brown: stephen hadley? >> he's in a way spent his whole life preparing for this job and it's good he did because he takes in the a very challenging time and i think he's going to have a lot of challenges before him. i think one of them is to prioritize where he's going to put his time. >> brown: well, you know, he spoke about the economy, getting the economy right first and foremost. he said "more than ever foreign policy is economic policy." did that sound right to you? >> i think that's right and i think this is a man who's grown up, really, in the political military side of foreign policy and national security and i think
: what did he have to say? >> hal told a story about how george w. bush was on the david letterman program, and during a break -- like a writer or something -- >> i think she was a writer -- >> right. she came in and handed david letterman some papers or something -- and george w. bush grabbed a shall that she was wearing -- >> a sweater or jacket or something. >> and wiped his glasses off on her article of clothing. >> and hal said he wiped his glasses on her skirt. and news busters called it wasn't a skirt! gotcha! >> stephanie: it is still just as douchy. the "stephanie miller show" in stephanie's absence regrets the error. >> missing the point entirely. >> stephanie: exactly. can i have some listener comedy whatever -- [ bell chimes ] >> stephanie: jim's favorite comments on yahoo, rocky mountain mike sent us this who was in a hissy in dc. last friday kfor posted a story on its facebook page about how president obama would be using the lincoln bible for the unofficial inauguration and the screen capture of that. so some of the comments. jared he should n
. george w. bush got 62 million votes in the 2004 election and conservatives said he had a mandate. barack obama got 62 million votes in the two -- 2012 election, and conservatives started a secessionist movement. but the obama campaign took it to them and made a difference in the end. they helped create a new electorate, a coalition of concerned and they turned it out on election day. our two political parties are separate and not equal. the percentage of republicans who are white has remained fairly steady since 2000 at about 87%. the percentage of democrats who are white in contrast has dropped from 64% in 2000 to 55% now. independents have gone from 79% to 67% white since 2000. the depth of republican dependence on white voters explains a lot about the recent election. not least about its outcome. republican efforts to suppress minority voters back fired big time. [applause] in florida alone, 266,000 more hispanics voted than in 2008. similarly in ohio, 209,000 more blacks voted than in 2008. overall, while romney received 59% of the white vote, all hot -- obama -- omaha? obama got 93%
, republicans have not had a majority of votes. even though george w. bush served two terms, he did not get a majority in 2000 and barely got one in 2004? >> i'm not one to minimize the danger and challenge of the republican party. losing 25 senate seats this year -- president obama only got 51% of the vote. the economy is looking great. a lot of democratic incumbents looked people ribble. the senate cannot be gerrymandered. it looked like a clean a snapshot of the country. for republicans to win 8 waterboarded -- while democrats one -- republicans will 8 and democrats won 25, that is dangerous. we need to figure out what went wrong in 2012. i'm not for endless naval gazing. there are plenty of fights to be had. where can we cooperate with president obama? in some ways, you lose an election, and you think about it for a few months. and you get back right on the horse and try to start writing again and figure out what we believe and and what fights we want to have and what policies we want to -- want to propose. host: politico wrote about you -- what have you been doing? guest: it is interes
. we saw the global presence put together by jim baker and george h.w. bush and the success of that in the engagement of the world's nations. but subsequent to that, um, we have seen a completely different scene, and that is what i would describe as the two alarmers or the three alarmers. and we've got about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world. and all of a sudden you have people who don't have that previous, a lot of people in congress who don't have that previous reference or who basically have come to the conclusion the world has changed, and we really can't afford nor do we have the public support for global engagement. and so when you go back home and talk to people back home, they say, you know, why do we give so much foreign awed when it literally -- aid when it literally is like saying, you know, you need to diet and lose a lot of walking and say, well, i'm going to go get a haircut, and that'll solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid and the amount of foreign presence now is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant co
h.w. bush did with speaker jim wright back in 1989. it's just an honoring day, unifying day. you can make the case but do it in a magnanimous way. >> i was going to say, congressman, sometimes i wonder if words matter at all at this point given the climate in washington, d.c. i only say this because i'm trying to at the same time look at the criticism of the exact same speech, the conservative group americans for prosperity called this a harshly ideological aggressively partisan speech more appropriate for the campaign trail. his address reads like a liberal laundry list while at the same time scott peaters, a democrat, said this is a call to action and we have the ability to work together. bernie sanders saying it's inspiring in its basic theme that we work together. i don't get it. you people who all do the same job, i understand partisanship, i just don't understand hyper partisanship. >> yeah, there's no place for hyperpartisanship. there are honest positions. the country is divided. even though the president won a big victory, he still got only 51, 52% of the vote. there is stil
bill clinton and marc thiessen, a former speech writer for george w. bush. and senator johnson didn't get a chance to answer the question that secretary clinton asked of him. what difference it make, why the people at the consulate that night, why they were there? >> you must be relieved to learn megyn, that you and katherine herridge and everybody at fox news are wasting your time, it doesn't make a difference how the americans died or whether the american people were misled how they died. this is a scandal not just because four americans were killed, it's not just a scandal because the administration ignored numerous warnings about the growing threat from al-qaeda. it's not just a scandal because they ignored and denied ambassador chris stevens' request for more security or didn't have forces in place to rescue them. it's a scandal for repeate an extended period laid the blame on a youtube video when any person watching events unfold know that wasn't the case. congress has a right to ask these questions and a responsible to ask these questions and secretary clinton has a responsib
. well, why? that's not what bill clinton did. that's not what george w. bush did. that's not what ronald reagan did. if you look at the exit polls after the november election, the people of the united states said we want both parties, all sides to get together and get something done in washington, d.c. our point was how can this guy who is working as an unbiased political director for cbs -- i mean, you tune to cbs, you want it unpolitical; right? right down the middle. how can he work for this far-left blog as well as their chief correspondent. john, pick a lane. which is it? down the middle or way left? >>brian: it looks like he was giving the president advice and he has a point of view. and i thought he was supposed to not have one. meanwhile, 22 minutes before the hour. >>steve: the coldest temperatures of the season bearing down on the midwest and northeast. the coldest place in the country yesterday was minnesota, 36 below at one spot. maria molina is tracking the weather. maria, i hear it is going to warm up in minnesota, up into the 20's in the next couple of days but it is bitte
over how to deal with the george w. bush tax cuts. the house wanted them all extended for everybody. democrats are never on board. president obama was never going to be on board with the idea. so john boehner struggled in that situation, even coming up with an alternative plan for extending tax breaks for anyone making less than $1 million a year. he had to pull from the courthouse. so that was. a was. the next day, he also -- not the next day. excuse me, on january 1, they came back and finally agreed to raise tax rates for those incomes of people making $400,000 a year. that was a tough bill and proposal for him to put forward to, just because taxes went up at the end of the day. the next day he came back and decided to not have a vote on the sandy relief package. that made house lawmakers angry in the northeast. governor chris christie of new jersey also had some tough words for him. he pulled the proposal because conservative republicans said the bill was loaded with pork with projects not related to the storm and they should've gone through the normal appropriations process. a
to raise the debt limit under george w. bush who was president then, barak obama said can't do it. sorry. it would be unpatriotic. >> he said america has a debt problem. i intend to -- >> steve: here we are on the precipice of his second term. do we imagine that anything is going to be different than the first term where he ran up the tab? >> no. i think that's pretty clear and if you look at the national debt from president to president, bush was a big spender. got it up to 7 trillion. but obama at 16.4 trillion and at this inauguration people are saying, no, he's not a spender. it's all bush. >> steve: of course. >> this is unsustainable. this is the big crisis of our time. >> steve: what's the statute of limitations on blaming bush run? >> never. there is no statute of limitations on murder or blaming bush. >> steve: all right. john stossel. check him out tonight on the fox business channel at 9:00 p.m. eastern time. thank you very much. all right. straight ahead, michelle malkin is coming up and says our kids are getting dumber and the president is to blame for lowering our standards
to be asked yesterday. i'm not sure we got really to the core. but i will say, carl, if you think george w. bush didn't have calls for his impeachment, we need to get you on google a little more often. >> not in the congress. a few. >> before we get to women in combat, also, no matter what, rand paul was bringing up a point. you may not have liked the way he brought it up, but if an ambassador in a hot zone cannot communicate with the secretary of state on the issue of security, there's something to be looked at. that's a big problem. >> there's a legitimate congressional investigation here. all i'm saying is that the notion that we have to put everything into a wildly partisan and ideological context instead of real fact finding is a failure of our politics. and this is one more failure of our politics instead of a reasoned investigation. >> i agree with carl. >> it's time to end the political theater and get to some really important fact finding. >> but as congresswoman harman said, it is, in fact, theater. do you remember when the democrats made condoleezza rice read the title on the me
more than george w. bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks or ronald reagan was responsible for the attacks on dhaka marine barracks in beirut which killed over 200 marines and frankly whether was called a terrorist attack or not in the immediate aftermath as far as i am concerned is irrelevant. we just have to make sure if it never happens again savitt in the future of our people are protected. that is what i want to get out of all of this. so we commend you for accepting of the recommendations and welcome your commitment to begin implementing them by the time you leave the department. even before they submit its conclusions the department moved to address certain shortcomings in its proposal. the vast majority for this proposal would come through funds previously appropriated for the lower priority programs. and i hope congress will move without delay to give the department to transfer authority that it needs to start applying these changes. it is important to remember the security isn't a one off endeavor. indy 500 it's a long-term responsibility and investment and in tha
that that money is being effectively used to address certain things. george w. bush, i give him significant credit for the that far -- because they have set a certain standard, that these are our values, these are our standards, if you are able to enforce and implement those standards, we will provide you that support. there are some very good success stories there. it is a difficult climate with which to go back home and tell people that it works and it is and our national interest and we have a moral commitment on some of the tragic things that are happening, for example nutrition and disease and so forth. but as we see what is happening now in africa, and the threats there any changes that are taking place, africa suddenly has become a place where we have more interest. chuck was deputy secretary -- i got my acronyms maxed -- mixed up. he spent a lot of time looking at africa from the standpoint of his position in europe, kind of foreshadowing what was to come. and pleading, i think, for engagement in dealing with what was happening there. now we are seeing some of the consequences of all of th
%. that ties the highest ever with george w. bush in the fourth year of his presidency it was also 76%. >> this is not a president who is uniting the country. frankly i think the last election shows he doesn't feel he needs to. he has got a hardened constituenciy. voting public in any case you watched his speech. on monday here is what i am doing if you don't like it, tough there. there was one passing line about reach. and even that wasn't. >> he said the word together a lot. together we move forward. together. certainly republicans after hearing it said that it felt like he had drawn a line in the sand for very progressive ideas most progressive they had heard in decades this has been the theme of the administration past year. can't get it through congress go by constitutional order. this constitutional thing is silly. we have agenda and we will enact it whether you like it or not. >> ronald reagan once said government is the problem. so is the current president doing the opposite in trying to expand government. lots of people talked about that after his inaugural address as well. w
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 58 (some duplicates have been removed)